[SEEK-Taxon] RE: relationship types

[franz@nceas.ucsb.edu]

>Quoting Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>:
> 
> Certainly we want to accomodate both (all) needs.  And I believe those
> needs
> are best met by not representing information about taxon concepts and
> information about Code-governed name objects as the same class of
> information.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich

Accepted, although *I* believe that a willingly narrow interpretation of what
the Codes govern, how they relate to their objects, and what it all means for
biology is part of what has gotten us to the current concept/name mix-up. Maybe
it's time to hard-wire a closer name/concept connection into our database
systems than has been done in the past, and maybe the TCS/LC interaction is the
opportunity to do so.

The question remains, if the LC-related activities CAN be independent (thus
allowing the disconnect to be perpetuated), does this maximize benefits for
upcoming generations of biodiversity researchers and systematists? I am not sure
it does, short- or long-term. The more ambitious yet also more responsible
solution might be to view the naming acts and changes with the actual taxonomic
justifications in mind.

I am just not sold on this "3-independent levels" argument (see Remsen in
Taxacom) as a scientifically optimal one. It might be preferable ONLY because of
practicality issues (we [uBio] don't have the money to do something better), and
if so that should be stated and people should feel uneasy about it. Taxonomists
have a history of asking for too little and making do anyway and that only makes
things worse. Those are some of my underlying concerns about the shallow reading
of the Code-prescribed actions and the arguments for independence. The can do
vs. the should do has not been sorted out satisfactorily.

Nico

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/